MECO (PVT.) LIMITED Versus Mirza JAVED HASSAN

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, CHAIRMAN.--- This revision petition has been directed against the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2016 passed by learned Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for recovery of dues i.e. Salary Rs.8,036/-, gratuity Rs.3,62,500 bonus Rs.12,500/-, leave encashment Rs.11,667/- and notice pay Rs.12,500/- before the respondent No.3 which was accepted. The petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte and after recording the ex parte evidence, the claim of respondent No.1 was accepted. Petitioner filed an application for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2011 which was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition under the Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which was disposed off with the observation:-

"That learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to pursue this petition in order to assail both the orders under section 17 before the competent forum and when such appeal is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and with the special reference to contest of present writ petition before this Court is disposed off."

3. Hence this appeal on the grounds mentioned therein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the Respondent No.1 has filed a fake and frivolous claim before the Respondent No.3 by way of producing fake and frivolous documents having no concern with the Petitioner Company. Further contended that from perusal of the record it is very much clear that the Petitioner Company was never served upon nor intimated regarding the pendency of the case before the Respondent No.3. It is pertinent to mention that two notices available in the record of the Respondent No.3 shows that neither the address of the Petitioner Company was complete nor any report regarding the valid service of summons upon the Petitioner Company is available there. Further contended that according to Order V, C.P.C. it is mandatory that if the service upon the Defendant cannot be affected in ordinary manner, then the service upon the Defendant count be affected by affixing notice on his office or some conspicuous place part of the office or through electronic media or publication in newspapers but in the present case the Respondent No.3 has failed to adapt any such procedure and itself has presumed regarding the service upon the Petitioner Company which is illegal and unjustified. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondent No.1, Mirza Javed Hussain, has died therefore a decree cannot be passed in favour of the dead person and prayed that revision petition be accepted and impugned judgment be set aside.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. The deceased, Mirza Javed Hussain, filed a claim under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and claimed Rs.407200/- with ten times compensation on account of 29 years gratuity, unpaid wages Rs.8036/-, bonus for the year 2009-10, 28 days leave encashment and notice pay. The learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Lahore vide its order dated 29/01/2011 awarded the decree in the sum of Rs.394703/-. However, the learned Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore dismissed the appeal being barred by 5 months and 8 days.

7 Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted could not account for the delay of 5 months and 8 days. This Tribunal is of the considered view that the learned Labour Court below rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation because perusal of order sheet reveals that the petitioner was repeatedly served with the notices but the petitioner did not appeared before the Authority to defend the claim of petitioner.

8. The objection of learned counsel for the petitioner that a decree could not be passed against a dead person is not tenable because the decree was awarded to the deceased Mirza Javed Hussain on 29/01/2011 when he was alive. The deceased respondent No.1 Mirza Javed Hussain was died on 05.11.2012. So the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable that the learned Authority awarded a decree to a dead person. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Hence no interference is called for. Revision petition is without any merit hence dismissed in limine.

HBT/9/PLT Petition dismissed.